# Very dumb 'complaint' of sorts.



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Mar 22, 2009)

Okay, I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but is there any way to separate the Spriting forum from the general art forum? I'm asking because every time I post something that took genuine effort I refresh the page to see someone's just updated their shitty recolouring thread or something.


----------



## Zora of Termina (Mar 22, 2009)

For once, I agree with a complaint posted here.
I haven't updated my thread in what feels like months because I know five seconds later someone's going to post in a spriting thread and no one'll see my post.

Separation of the two would be very nice.


----------



## ultraviolet (Mar 23, 2009)

While we're at it (and I'm sure much of the spriters would agree) is there any chance of having a subforum for requests instead of them being together with ordinary threads?

Also seconding a split from the general art forum.


----------



## Cloaked (Mar 23, 2009)

Why are the sprites and the general art together in the first place?  Sprites aren't usually considered 'serious' art at all, are they?  It'd be like mashing separate Fanfiction and Original Fiction forums together and expecting it all to work without a hitch.  Or pokemon roleplaying and original roleplaying forums together and expecting the same thing.

Oh, wait.


----------



## Departure Song (Mar 24, 2009)

The actual art forum has some degree of genuine talent; the spriting forum is a bunch of children who think they're cool because they know how to use MS Paint. Were I an artist who frequently posted there, I would be upset, too.

Seconding the original post.


----------



## Taliax (Mar 24, 2009)

I agree with splitting them.


----------



## Zhorken (Mar 24, 2009)

Pixel art is real art.  Game sprite tweaks, edits, etc are simple as hell and largely use others' work.  Fuck, I could mass-do the simpler things (recolors, etc) with simple shell scripts.  I don't see that much real pixel art (including 'scratch sprites') happening; I'd just rule that edits of others' art don't belong cluttering the art forum and merge the bit of honest pixel art with the main art forum.  Much neater; imposes a bit of quality control that I'd think would work well.

If you're just poking around with someone else's art, you're not the artist.  This holds for Game Freak's artists' sprites.

of course, it's not going to happen and I don't really care, but I figured I'd point out what could easily work well (even if it'd go over a bit badly at first)


----------



## spaekle (Mar 24, 2009)

I agree with everything that's already been posted.

Hell, I've even seen people tracing stuff off of Arkeis and Suta-Raito in the Spriting forum and saying it's their own. It pisses me off. :\


----------



## Rotomize (Mar 24, 2009)

I agree with the OP, someone could have done the Mona Lisa of their style of drawing, only to see that it won't get as many views because of a spriting thread was posted in 5 seconds after they updated their art thread.


----------



## Butterfree (Mar 24, 2009)

Cloaked said:


> Why are the sprites and the general art together in the first place?  Sprites aren't usually considered 'serious' art at all, are they?  It'd be like mashing separate Fanfiction and Original Fiction forums together and expecting it all to work without a hitch.  Or pokemon roleplaying and original roleplaying forums together and expecting the same thing.
> 
> Oh, wait.


...how is fanfiction posted online honestly less "serious" than original fiction posted online? :/ Neither is going to get published; both are practice-writing by amateurs; the only possible argument for separating them is that some original fiction has the potential to be published in some heavily edited form at some vague later point in the future, but even that is only because of copyright law and not because there is any actual difference between the art forms. For role-playing, where none has the chance of being published, there is absolutely no possible reason to make a distinction between that which involves Pokémon and that which does not. Fundamentally, there is absolutely no difference in any artistic sense between a work of fiction that involves species created by Game Freak and species created by evolution. To think one is automatically better than the other, or that one being relevant to one's interest does not to some degree imply the other might be as well, is nothing but senseless elitism. At least sprites and general artwork are distinguishable by something other than the arbitrary creator of parts of their subject matter.

Making the sprite forum independent of the main art forum would be a very simple matter, though honestly, if somebody is interested in seeing when you've updated your thread, why in the world would they rely on happening to see it in the "Last post" column on the main page? If I want to see when an artist updates their thread, I'll check the actual art forum regularly; I can't really see this dramatically affecting the odds that people will notice when you update, since the only way it'll attract more people is if they think the title of your thread sounds particularly interesting and happen to walk in when your particular thread is the last one posted in. But whatever floats your boat; if you want to try it, that's fine by me.



> While we're at it (and I'm sure much of the spriters would agree) is there any chance of having a subforum for requests instead of them being together with ordinary threads?


Sure, can be done.



> The actual art forum has some degree of genuine talent; the spriting forum is a bunch of children who think they're cool because they know how to use MS Paint. Were I an artist who frequently posted there, I would be upset, too.


Oh, come on. I'm not commenting on the quality of the sprites that happen to be posted in this forum, but I'm sick of people thinking they're cool because they say spriting inherently requires no effort. There is little to no effort in standard recoloring, yes; very little in your average thrown-together splice; but you can also make an art out of blending parts properly and scratching in between to make something that looks like a natural whole, and that can easily take a lot of time and effort. Pixel-overs done properly take hours, and scratch sprites are in no way inferior to larger drawings.

If you're going to protest with "But when they're working from other people's artwork, it's not as good as proper original art!": I would have absolutely nothing against an art thread where somebody, say, created digital art imitating photos or famous paintings, or photomanips, or whatever. It can be well done or it can be badly done, and it can be done with effort or with little effort, but denying that doing it well takes quite a bit of effort on the artist's part is silly. As long as the original artwork is attributed and not used in violation of the original artist's terms for its usage, I don't see why a person working from other material can't have their work recognized as well.

As for why scratch sprites are categorized with sprite edits and not other artwork, that would be because of sensible overlap of interests. People who make scratch sprites are more likely to also do other kinds of sprite work than drawing, and in critiquing a scratch sprite, there are all sorts of considerations that apply to pixel art in general but not to traditional art, while those aspects that apply to both traditional art and scratch sprites (anatomy and shape, coloring and shading, etc.) generally apply to some degree to at least some kinds of derivative sprite work as well.

EDIT: Sprite forum split, request shop forum made. I moved all the sprite shops on the first page of the sprite forum over; if you want me to move yours, or if you don't want yours to be a shop, feel free to PM me.

(Jesus Christ, I think there was one or two showcases on that page. o_O)


----------



## Tarvos (Mar 24, 2009)

Using someone else's work as a start-off point to create your own is simply being influenced. It's a very common ideal to have an existing work, or various existing works, as guidelines for what you want to achieve with your own work.


----------



## Medical Meccanica (Mar 24, 2009)

FINALLY. Thank god this happened (the request forum split I mean).
And for those of you who think spriting/pixels are NOT art: pixeljoint.com. That's all I have to say.


----------



## Departure Song (Mar 25, 2009)

I don't think anybody's saying pixel art is not art, Medical Meccanica.


----------



## Zhorken (Mar 25, 2009)

Medical Meccanica said:
			
		

> And for those of you who think spriting/pixels are NOT art: pixeljoint.com. That's all I have to say.





Zhorken said:


> Pixel art is real art.


I never said it wasn't.  I said that edits of others' sprites (this includes ones directly out of video games) aren't.


----------



## ultraviolet (Mar 25, 2009)

> I said that edits of others' sprites (this includes ones directly out of video games) aren't.


It's still art. Perhaps not original art, no, but it's still art.



> FINALLY. Thank god this happened (the request forum split I mean).


What do you mean, 'finally'? You've been here less than a month, other people here have had to put up with it longer than you. 
Also, thankyou Butterfree. :)


----------



## Butterfree (Mar 25, 2009)

Zhorken said:


> I never said it wasn't.  I said that edits of others' sprites (this includes ones directly out of video games) aren't.


Film editing is not art. You're just pasting together scenes that other people shot, directed and acted.

Landscape painting is not art. You're just copying nature.

Films adapted from books are not art. They're just taking somebody else's story and putting it in a different medium.

Cooking is not art. You're just taking vegetables somebody else grew, meat from animals somebody else bred, spices somebody else harvested and so on and mixing them together.


You can be as choosy as you like about to what you want to apply the word "art", but you cannot honestly sit there and pretend that because somebody's artwork is made from something else that they didn't make, the artist's work is suddenly meaningless.


----------



## surskitty (Mar 25, 2009)

The artist's work is meaningless if they refuse to acknowledge who actually expended effort.

Sure, it's still art, but the real issue is when people claim that it's entirely theirs when it ... isn't.


----------



## Butterfree (Mar 25, 2009)

Obviously. Have you ever met a spriter who tried to claim sprite edits as being entirely theirs? People don't specifically mention it simply because it's a given - we've all seen Game Freak's sprites and know a splice when we see one. :/


----------



## Medical Meccanica (Mar 25, 2009)

ultraviolet said:


> What do you mean, 'finally'? You've been here less than a month, other people here have had to put up with it longer than you.


Does my profile say less than a month? Because I'm almost certain I was here for longer. (Plus, the old forum had the same problem, which I was on for a while)


----------



## Butterfree (Mar 25, 2009)

Your join date says July 2008. I'm quite as puzzled as you are.


----------



## surskitty (Mar 25, 2009)

Butterfree said:


> Obviously. Have you ever met a spriter who tried to claim sprite edits as being entirely theirs? People don't specifically mention it simply because it's a given - we've all seen Game Freak's sprites and know a splice when we see one. :/


Occasionally, yes.  Usually when they're using semi-obscure things as bases and feel that no one will notice.  :/


----------



## Zhorken (Mar 25, 2009)

ok "real art" wasn't a good phrase to use; I'm not trying to bend the word's definition to what I want.  I didn't mean "it's not art by definition" or "if it's not good enough, it can't be called art", just "it doesn't have a ton of artistic merit or take as much talent* as a lot of people seem to think if you restrict your pixel art to using large portions of someone else's".

Sprite editing would be more accurately compared to TV clips strung together to music on youtube.  There also isn't as much room for skill in sprite editing as there is in film editing, and it's a completely different value of "editing".  Film editing is part of the finished product, not a derivative work.  Filming a film and editing it are different processes; editing sprites is essentially just making your own little shards of pixel art but using someone else's as a base for them instead of actually creating something from scratch.  Sprite editing is a good start, and can go a fair distance, but you have to start making your own art at some point.  (Eventually, your edit is so different that it's mostly your work anyway.)

You can be great at sprite editing, and can put as much effort to it as you want, but making your own pixel art, even basic, is still a step further.
You can be great at putting a piece of paper over someone else's drawing and then tracing it, and can put as much effort to it as you want, but drawing your own things, even basic, is still a step further.
You can be great at gluing bits of a TV show together, but it still doesn't compare to actually helping piece together a film.

I'm assuming the goal is to improve as an artist and not to just pick up some simple form of art as a hobby for some time then lose interest, though.

Also I'm only addressing the first comparison because the rest are stretching it and don't look parallel to me; I assumed this was deliberate to convey "well you're being absurd!" or something.

*I do mean learned talent, not "oh you're just gifted" talent

EDIT: Slso a lot of things (recoloring!) still take absolutely no skill, and I honestly do think that threads pretty much devoted to them should be outlawed.


----------



## Lucas₇₅₅ (Mar 26, 2009)

Zhorken said:


> Slso a lot of things (recoloring!) still take absolutely no skill, and I honestly do think that threads pretty much devoted to them should be outlawed.


Why? Because you _dislike_ them?
That's no reason to get rid of something.


----------



## surskitty (Mar 26, 2009)

No, because he can do them in one line without ever actually opening an image editor.


----------



## Zhorken (Mar 26, 2009)

because 99% of them take absolutely no effort or skill

Recoloring to a *scheme* would be harder to do from to command line (rather than recoloring to a specific color), but it would still take me less than a minute in the GIMP.


----------



## Kai Lucifer (Mar 26, 2009)

Just joining this thread to say thanks for seperating the sprites from the artwork, as I too had a problem with people posting rubbish over my thread.

I also believe that recoloring only sprite shops are a disgrace, and that some spriters here really need to up their game.


----------



## Butterfree (Mar 26, 2009)

Zhorken said:


> ok "real art" wasn't a good phrase to use; I'm not trying to bend the word's definition to what I want.  I didn't mean "it's not art by definition" or "if it's not good enough, it can't be called art", just "it doesn't have a ton of artistic merit or take as much talent* as a lot of people seem to think if you restrict your pixel art to using large portions of someone else's".
> 
> Sprite editing would be more accurately compared to TV clips strung together to music on youtube.  There also isn't as much room for skill in sprite editing as there is in film editing, and it's a completely different value of "editing".  Film editing is part of the finished product, not a derivative work.  Filming a film and editing it are different processes; editing sprites is essentially just making your own little shards of pixel art but using someone else's as a base for them instead of actually creating something from scratch.  Sprite editing is a good start, and can go a fair distance, but you have to start making your own art at some point.  (Eventually, your edit is so different that it's mostly your work anyway.)
> 
> ...


Oh, sure, sprite editing is a limited art form that takes less skill than original pixel art, traditional drawing and so on. I was just objecting to your statement that spriting in general is "a bunch of kids who think they're cool because they know how to use MS Paint". There is less skill on their part involved in a sprite edit than in a drawing, but that doesn't mean there isn't any or that a sprite edit automatically has no merit as a piece of artwork simply because it requires _less_ effort and skill than original pixel art. Technically, it requires less effort and skill to draw from visual reference than to draw something completely out of your own imagination, but that doesn't mean that drawings with a visual reference can only serve as a gateway to drawing from imagination alone. It requires less effort and artistic skill to adapt a book than to write a completely original screenplay, but that doesn't mean adaptations are therefore without merit.


----------



## Zhorken (Mar 26, 2009)

That wasn't my statement, it was Departure Song's.

My only other real point (aside from "sprite editing is hella simple as pixel art goes") was "if you've edited someone else's work, you're not the artist"; I was tired and meant "you're just _one_ of the sprite's artists, not _the_ artist, and chances are most of the thing is still not your work" but didn't get that across too clearly.  Most people acknowledge that the sprite wasn't entirely their work, but they still seem to think that the sprite belongs to them as a piece of art.  I have no idea why I went as far as "absolutely all derivative works should be against the rules"; I really only wanted to take a swing at the useless stuff (again, simple recoloring).

And again, yeah, "real art" was really not the best phrase I could have used to get across what I meant.  ^^;


----------



## Departure Song (Mar 26, 2009)

Butterfree said:


> I was just objecting to your statement that spriting in general is "a bunch of kids who think they're cool because they know how to use MS Paint".


I was referring specifically to our own spriting forum in its current state, not spriting in general.


----------



## ultraviolet (Mar 26, 2009)

> Does my profile say less than a month? Because I'm almost certain I was here for longer. (Plus, the old forum had the same problem, which I was on for a while)


Wow, I'm really sorry. Now that I think of it, I have seen you before, I think I mistook you as Anche or something. I'm sorry. D:


----------



## Tarvos (Mar 26, 2009)

the issue is not whether spriting has merit but whether spriters _suck_ at what they do

clearly you don't want to clog up a forum with 2000 useless pixelation threads, no matter how much artistic merit they have, if it means other art forms get lost in the forum. in that case give the spriters a separate forum where that interest can be practised. this so that talented artists don't get snowed under and receive their due attention.


----------



## Butterfree (Mar 26, 2009)

...uh, that's the way it's always been? Spriting has been a subforum since Conforums; the issue here was only about the last post on the main page showing threads from the more active subforum more than threads from the main forum, and if you haven't noticed I went and split it off entirely just after I made my first post in this thread. The other issue was about sprite _request_ threads clogging up the sprite subforum, and I split that off already as well. There is no need to go on trying to convince me that it needs to be done.

The entire squabble about the artistic merits of spriting wais just a little off-topic aside about whether sprites deserve a forum to begin with.

I'm sorry for the misattribution of the quote to Zhorken. In any case we've cleared up what we were trying to say and I don't think there is much of a disagreement left, so we might as well just close this since the issue has been resolved.


----------

